Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

I think it's a bit of a blanket statement that needs justification, it's the same as the other except the other uses even worse spelling and talks about 'the internet and a trendy rocket ship' :/

 

[funnybunny]

well..if ur goin 2 attack sum1's spelling/grammar...then wat about "even worse spelling "
if u didnt realise , there is no need for even....it just shows that there is no need to edit and review one's post carefully..it's not an essay, but merely a forum...
i dont see any reason why you would not be able to understand my post..
dont accuse ppl of posting "blanket statements" when you cant find in someway to rebutt the statement..!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

well..if ur goin 2 attack sum1's spelling/grammar...then wat about "even worse spelling "

People usually use it to add emphasis, tho I do realise it's not needed.. In an essay I probably wouldn't use that type of language, however in conversation or a speech I would.

example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3708157.stm

.it's not an essay, but merely a forum...

I've never called for 'perfect' spelling/grammar, merely to show some structure, have decent spelling and use the correct words. Your criticism of me was quite harsh, and I would say only should apply to a formal essay... however I don't see the problem with criticising:

but arent the aethiests also insecure in the fact that they cant handle that their is something bigger out there that they cant get to on the internet or a trendy rocket ship,

i dont see any reason why you would not be able to understand my post..

I don't understand the 'internet or a trendy rocket ship' part.

dont accuse ppl of posting "blanket statements" when you cant find in someway to rebutt the statement..!

I was talking about the post you had asked me to comment on from the atheist...

 

[Benal]

well..if ur goin 2 attack sum1's spelling/grammar...then wat about "even worse spelling "
if u didnt realise , there is no need for even....it just shows that there is no need to edit and review one's post carefully..it's not an essay, but merely a forum...
i dont see any reason why you would not be able to understand my post..

It's very irritating, it makes it more difficult to read. Remember, it's not a mobile, merely a computer, hence you can easily write in an aesthetically pleasing manner.

Anyway, religious beliefs are inconsequential. They don't come to anything in this life. You just go to the same place in the second life. And if there's nothing else, you're obviously not going to be disappointed.
Despite being a Catholic, I live under the simple premise that God would prefer an Atheist who acts in a righteous manner, to a church-goer who doesn't.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Despite being a Catholic, I live under the simple premise that God would prefer an Atheist who acts in a righteous manner, to a church-goer who doesn't.

For some reason catholics seem to have a much more reasoned approach to their belief than other christian denominations (in my experience) at least on the internet.

 

[the.chosen.one]

That statement could have only been said by a troll. I do not believe that was a real statement.

i think that was completely unnecessary seeing as you obviously saw he'd written....

was merely attackin the idiotic comment "All those insecure people who need an ancient book of dubious authorship to justify their existences" by using another one...my bad i guess

and admitted his folly.

Despite being a Catholic, I live under the simple premise that God would prefer an Atheist who acts in a righteous manner, to a church-goer who doesn't.

i believe in that. i think its applicable to God, as a universal term - taking in all religions.

 

[transcendent]

Doubting religion is different from doubting the existence of God. I'm done being patient with theists. They are a lost cause. Quit arguing with them, it's a waste of breath. This is the second 'Does God exist?' thread not including the numerous other thread which turned into a religious debate. I'll stand here and you religious types can stand way over there and let us never speak to each other on the matter again. This is getting ridiculous. Oh and I was rephrasing what someone wrote on the Herald today. Still makes more sense then religion though.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i think that was completely unnecessary seeing as you obviously saw he'd written....

Look at the times, I was still writing my post when he'd already written his retraction.

 

[davin]

speaking of insecurity, its my opinion that extremists must be extremely insecure about their beliefs since they just dont like the way there can possibly be another belief to their own...thats a funny thought.

that does seem to hit the nail on the head with extremists

well..the same question can be asked why u put faith in the theory of evolution?
..why do u put faith in the evidence that supports it? ...just cause it's in front of your eyes, doesnt mean it's neccesarily true...why put faith in ur eyes to show everything truly and correctly, then?

there's no faith. thats the difference. I'm not putting faith into it, i'm accepting a logic that is based on observable evidence. I've either seen firsthand or read evidence/seen calculations for that which i think is correct with science. i've never seen anything that is evidence for a god.
personally, i don't take that to mean tehre could not be one, just that i've no reason to believe it. hense, agnostic.

they feel insecure with believing in something that isn't in front of their eyes.

why believe something i've no proof for?

 

[ihavenothing]

Organised relgion seems just like a trap to quieten the masses and make them not feel miserable about their shitty lives.

 

[volition]

Organised relgion seems just like a trap to quieten the masses and make them not feel miserable about their shitty lives.

In this case, atheism isn't always better, look at communism in russia. The state became the religion

 

[Not-That-Bright]

In this case, atheism isn't always better, look at communism in russia. The state became the religion

What the hell does atheism have to do with communism? The state in communist russia did not become 'the religion'... Honestly is this just rhetoric or do you have some sort of justification?

 

[ihavenothing]

Atheism does not have to be a belief, it can just be the state of not believining in any god without much concern. In communism it just was the ideology promoted by the government, not by the majority of people.

 

[SashatheMan]

Doubting religion is different from doubting the existence of God. .

thats a pretty good point.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Ok, back onto the topic that the thread was started for. I would go and get a quote to start me off for this next bit but I can't be bothered trawling through ten pages, of almost, scientific and religious philsophy.


The following is relevant to all religions:
Perhaps the advocates in defence of religious sensitivity should stop and think about the principles involved. The very basis of this debate is whether or not free speech in a democratic, secular country gives one the right to criticise (through whatever medium) religious ideas.
Religion, like any form of power, can be used as a weapon. God may be real, and he may be perfect, and he ay have passed his word down onto mortal man, but mortal man is not infalliable and mortal man is apt to the sins of greed and selfishness, apt to fall victim to the allure of power. The power such as being a senior, respected religious leader.
Throughout history many atrocities have been performed in the name of religion. One of the great advocates of free speech, Voltaire, rebelled, not against religion, but against the oppression committed in the name of religion. He lived his life in fear of the power hungry establishment of the Church finding out about him.
Since then, albeit slowly, the ideal of freedom of speech has spread into Western, democratic countries and became an insurmontable (one would hope) defense against tyranny. Tyranny may come in many forms, be it government, corporate, international or religious.
The intent here is not to say that religion is to blame, but to point out that the people who advocate religion are but people and are susceptible to falling victim to their own lust for power. All theists should realise that evil works in manipulative, sinister and sly ways and as such is it not conceivable that an evil person, even a misguided person, could circumspect the concepts of a religion, especially if they are in a position of authority. It is up to the people who follow him to call him to account for his actions. In many theocracies this is not possible. They are little more than dictatorships. And if someone with malovent intentions gains that seat of power, who is to steer him back to the way that their God has laid out?
In Western democracies at least we have 'freedom of speech' which serves as a safeguard to prevent the rise of tyranny. Though it may not be perfect, and though it may be used sometimes as a defence for criticism is the best mechanism to date for such matters, and thus it is in everyone's interests to allow free speech to flourish.



Edit: By the way, doesn't it seem like this whole fiasco was something that has been brewing for a long time. Sooner or later their was going to be something that inflamed the tensions between islam and the Western way of life. Perhaps it is better that the realisation of that some concepts and ideals are incompatible is recognised now rather than allowed to continue in silent seething.
Had these cartoons not been published then it would only have prolonged the inevitable conflict.

Therefore, the real question is whether or not there is any possibility that the ideals held by the West can interact with the ways of islam?

 

[davin]

i think its most interesting that this was, in effect, a created controversy by Danish imams rather than a reaction to thigns actually published, sicne the protests wereen't until the three never-printed cartoons started circulating.

 

[Enlightened_One]

i think its most interesting that this was, in effect, a created controversy by Danish imams rather than a reaction to thigns actually published, sicne the protests wereen't until the three never-printed cartoons started circulating.

When you think about it, how many of these rioting muslims actually saw the cartoons in question?

 

[davin]

well, some of the danish imams were distributing them when they took them to the arab countries, and with a lot of western media avoiding the cartoons, and most all of the arab media, there was less of a way to make it clear that those ones weren't real

if the 12 were such a big deal on their own, why no controversy when the cartoons were printed in a paper in Egypt back in..october i beleive? all 12 were printed during ramadan and no protests

 

[Captain Gh3y]

When you think about it, how many of these rioting muslims actually saw the cartoons in question?

Probably none. If they'd all seen the cartoons they probably wouldn't have cared or rioted at all, it was the propaganda/lies from the Syrian/Iranian governments that got them going.

 

[davin]

and the imams. and i think, if they saw any, it was probably the cartoons that the imams made and distributed